WHETHER AVERSION FROM THE SUPERNATURAL END
CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT AVERSION FROM
THE NATURAL END

In
classical Thomism as understood by Capreolus, Cajetan, Ferrariensis,
Bañez, Alvarez, Lemos, John of St. Thomas, Gonet, Godoy, the
Salmanticenses, Billuart, Gotti, Del Prado, and others, it is
generally admitted that fallen man cannot be directly averted from
his final supernatural end without at the same time being at least
indirectly averted from God, his final natural end and the author of
nature. Why? Because even the natural law prescribes that God is to
be obeyed whatever He commands whether in the natural or in a higher
order. From this principle Thomists generally deduce the following
conclusions which are rejected by many only because of insufficient
grasp of the foregoing principle.

1.
Fallen man cannot by his natural powers alone, without restorative
grace, love God the author of nature above all things with an
effectively efficacious love. This is the express opinion of St.
Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109, a. 3, where he says that, in contrast to
the state of incorrupt nature, “man in the state of fallen nature
requires for this the help of grace which heals nature,” since, “on
account of the corruption of nature, the rational appetite of the
will seeks an individual good unless it is healed by grace.” A
weakened power cannot exercise toward God the very efficient act of
a healthy power unless it is healed. With still greater reason,
fallen man cannot observe the whole of the natural law without
healing grace. (Cf. Ia IIae, q. 109, 2. 4.)

2. In
the state of fallen nature not yet restored, man has less strength
to perform a moral good than he would have had in the state of pure
nature. Why? Because now man is born with original sin, that is,
directly averted from his supernatural end and indirectly averted
from his final natural end; whereas, on the contrary, in the state
of pure nature he would not have been born directly turned away from
his final natural end, but capable of either conversion or aversion
in regard to it. St. Thomas affirms this explicitly enough in
treating of the “wounds inflicted upon the whole of human nature by
the sin of our first parents,” especially the wound of malice in the
will whereby the natural inclination to virtue is diminished. (Cf.
Ia IIae, q.85, a.3; q.82, a. I ad I.)

3. As
the Angelic Doctor asserts, Ia IIae, q. 89, a. 6, with regard to an
unbaptized child: “When he begins to have the use of reason . . .
the first thing that occurs to a man as subject for thought is to
deliberate about himself. And if he directs himself to the proper
end, he obtains through grace the remission of original sin. Again,
ad 3: “For the first thing that occurs to a man who attains to
discretion is to consider himself as that toward which he should
order other things as to an end. For the end is first in intention.
And therefore this is the time when he becomes obligated by the
positive command of God, who says: ‘Turn ye to Me . . . and I will
turn to you’ (Zach. 1:3).” In the De veritate, q. 24, a. 12
ad I, St. Thomas also writes: “As soon as an adult receives the use
of free will, if he prepares himself for grace he will have grace”;
that is, if he does what in him lies with the help of actual grace,
God does not refuse habitual grace nor, accordingly, faith and
charity; and He therefore manifests the revealed truths which are
entirely necessary for salvation, at least that God is and is a
rewarder. This is an admirable form of baptism of desire, without
miracle but with the very special help of God and the guardian
angle. Then the child should efficaciously love God the author of
nature above all things, and this cannot be done without healing
grace. But if he does what he can under actual grace, according to
St. Thomas, he is justified. Many theologians, however, deny this
last conclusion of St. Thomas and Thomists regarding
the justification of an unbaptized child. Yet it is not easy to
reject it or destroy the principles upon which this conclusion is
based. (Cf. above, pp. 197ff.)

4. The fourth consequence of the principle
enunciated above is that in the limbo of children the souls of
infants who died before receiving baptism, although they do not
strictly suffer from the loss of supernatural happiness, yet do not
have absolute, perfect natural happiness since they remain
indirectly averted from their final natural end on account of
unforgiven original sin. But they have “a certain natural
beatitude”; cf. De malo, q. 5, a. 3; and they are exempt from any
pain of the senses which is inflicted in punishment for a personal
conversion to a transitory good; cf. De malo, q. 5, a. 2.

In the supplement to the Summa, q. 89,
a. 5 ad 3, we read: “Even children who die before attaining maturity
will appear at the last general judgment, not to be judged but to
witness the glory of the Judge.” Cf. Hugon, De novissimis,
1927, p. 813. There are other consequences
of the foregoing priniples.114

Is it certain
that this basic principle is found in the works of St. Thomas?
Beyond any doubt, if the texts cited are carefully studied,
especially Ia IIae, q. 109, a. 3: “In the state of fallen nature man
requires the help of grace healing nature in order that he may love
God naturally [as author of nature] above all things.” And again,
IIa IIae, q. 10, a. I ad I: “It is not proper to human nature to
have infused faith. But it is proper to human nature for the mind of
man not to reject the interior instinct and exterior preaching of
truth. Hence unbelief is accordingly contrary to nature.” All sin
which is directly opposed to the supernatural end is at least
indirectly against God as natural end and author of nature, since
the natural law already prescribes that God is to be obeyed whatever
He commands, whether in the natural order or in a higher order.

The conclusion is therefore contrary to
naturalism and laicism: He who withdraws from his supernatural end
most assuredly cannot perfectly attain to his natural end. In the
present economy of salvation there is a necessary connection between
the two orders. As a matter of fact, every man is either in the
state of grace or in the state of sin, and if he is in sin, he is
directly averted from his final supernatural end and indirectly from
his final natural end. St. Thomas comments on Matt. 12:30: “God is
the natural end toward which all things tend; therefore he who is
not with God must be separated from Him.” Naturalism is, after all,
contrary to nature, since it is against God toward whom all nature
tends.

Hence Christ declared: “He that is not with Me,
is against Me: and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth” (Matt.
12:30). But on the other hand He assured the apostles: “He that is
not against you, is for you” (Mark 9:39). Accordingly, those who are
already sincerely seeking God do so by the help of grace, as if God
were to say to them:

“You would not be seeking me sincerely if in
some measure you had not already found Me.” “Not that we are
sufficient to think anything [salutary] of ourselves, as of
ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God” (II Cor. 3:5).

whether it can be willed
without grace, 52-56in its entirety from
God, 248in natural order, 52"not to resist grace"
is, 90 and note supernatural, 53use of natural works, 89of the whole in nature, 57, 60works of just
meritorious, 378

to avoid sin, 92-96denied, 9to do any good, 52-56
to fulfill natural law,
67-74
knowledge of truth,
41-52
to love God, 56-66
to merit eternal life,
74
to persevere, 99-109
to prepare for grace,
75-91
to rise from sin, 91
for salutary works of
just man, 97-99

ordered to proper end
obtains grace, 64. 504
subject to God in the
state of innocence, 24
sufficient help at age
of, 81
unable to avoid all inordinate movements, 96
unable to demonstrate
possibility of grace, 409
undeniable first
principles of, 301

* It
is regretted that the files containing the
chapters of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's book have no pagination. However, by reference to the
Table of Contents, it is possible to
discover which chapters contain particular topics listed in the
Index.